nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Melhor Prática para Gerenciar Pontos de Medição de Gás (ou pontos de interconexão ou interceptação) e Válvulas como Controladores de Sub-rede na Utility Network

CoronaGis

Olá a todos,

Estou trabalhando com uma Esri Utility Network para um sistema de distribuição de gás e tenho uma pergunta específica sobre a melhor prática para lidar com pontos de medição de gás (PM) - (ou pontos de interconexão ou interceptação) - e válvulas como controladores de sub-rede.

No nosso sistema atual (geometric network), os distritos são definidos por esses três objetos:

válvulas
pontos de medição
pontos de interconexão ou interceptação

Aqui está uma ilustração simplificada do cenário:

A linha verde representa o Distrito A.
A linha azul representa o Distrito B
A válvula (representada por um símbolo de borboleta) está localizada na fronteira entre o Distrito A e o Distrito B.
O ponto de medição (PM) está muito próximo da válvula (cerca de 1 metro de distância) e pertence ao Distrito B.

Se configurarmos tanto a válvula quanto o PM como controladores de sub-rede, isso causará problemas na validação da sub-rede porque o tubo do meio (X) que na realidade é do distrito B seria definido como um novo mini distrito.

Minhas dúvidas e perguntas são:

É recomendado usar apenas válvulas como controladores de sub-rede e tratar os pontos de medição (PM) como ativos regulares logicamente conectados às válvulas? Em qual grupo fcl/ativo/tipo de ativo é melhor colocar os PM? Quais regras podemos usar (junção-aresta ou colocar o ponto de medição afastado da tubulação)?
É recomendado usar apenas válvulas como controladores de sub-rede com um atributo que identifique que também são usados como PM?
Alternativamente, existe uma melhor prática para modelar pontos de medição e válvulas ambos como controladores de sub-rede quando estão tão próximos e pertencem ao mesmo distrito?
Como outras implementações da utility network lidaram com esse tipo de situação?
Existem regras ou configurações específicas da sub-rede que podem evitar erros de validação neste caso?

Obrigado antecipadamente por qualquer conselho ou exemplos!
Astrid

Encontre mais publicações marcadas com

Gas

Pipeline

Accepted answers

Ayan Palit

@CoronaGis Thanks for posting your use case with details and drawing. I encourage organizations to conceive the best way to model the network, rather than duplicate what a legacy system used to do. Utility Network has much broader modelling capabilities with greater possibilities.

Here are my comments:

Start at identifying the subnetworks for your gas distribution system. A great resource for this is: Managing Gas and Pipeline Networks: Creating Subnetworks
Is District similar to a pressure zone? If so, Compressor or Regulator are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for Pressure tier.
Controllable valves are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for isolation tier.
Measurement points do not impact network behavior and therefore not good choice for 'device' and hence 'subnetwork controller' (only devices can act as controllers).
Assuming use of the Gas and Pipeline Referencing Utility Network Foundation , PipelineDevice has a yes/no flag field, that can be used to indicate Measurement or SCADA indicator. Note this is simply an attribute, and doesn't impact network behavior.

Utility companies often have unique business requirements that drive the modelling decisions. Hoping others in the community will share their implementation advice.

All comments

Ayan Palit

Here are my comments:

Start at identifying the subnetworks for your gas distribution system. A great resource for this is: Managing Gas and Pipeline Networks: Creating Subnetworks
Is District similar to a pressure zone? If so, Compressor or Regulator are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for Pressure tier.
Controllable valves are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for isolation tier.
Measurement points do not impact network behavior and therefore not good choice for 'device' and hence 'subnetwork controller' (only devices can act as controllers).
Assuming use of the Gas and Pipeline Referencing Utility Network Foundation , PipelineDevice has a yes/no flag field, that can be used to indicate Measurement or SCADA indicator. Note this is simply an attribute, and doesn't impact network behavior.

Utility companies often have unique business requirements that drive the modelling decisions. Hoping others in the community will share their implementation advice.

RobertKrisher

It depends on the kind of valve between the two districts and what tier the subnetworks belong to. I'll call out @TomDeWitte for the final design intention of the model since it doesn't contain any definition of a district metering area. At the end of the day, it is your model, and you should configure it to meet your needs.

If we interpret your question through the way the model comes configured, I have to assume that the district is either a system, pressure zone, or isolation zone. You can look at the data model to see what devices are allowed to control subnetworks to infer how the model was designed to be used:

System - If these districts represent different systems and the PM is actually a meter, then this could be represented as a system subnetwork where the PM is a Custody Transfer Meter.

Pressure Zone - If the valve regulates pressure, this could be represented as a pressure subnetwork where the valve is a regular and the subnetwork controller. The PM would be a Pressure Monitoring Device.

Isolation Zone - If the valve is a Controllable Valve between two arbitrary areas of your network that you want to be isolation zones (it seems unlikely, but I'll mention it here). The

If it's some kind of metering district, then we'd be talking outside of the current configuration, and I'd want to defer to Tom before I exercise too much creativity.

TomDeWitte

When I looked at your diagram, I interpreted it to be at least 2 OVERLAPPING subnetworks. The Gas Measurement Meter (PM), I would guess to be what we call a custody transfer meter, which is one of the types of device our gas and pipeline industry model uses as a subnetwork controller to distinguish between two system subnetworks. The valve at the edge of your districts could be a pressure regulating valve, which our gas and pipeline industry model uses as a subnetwork controller to distinguish between two pressure subnetworks, or the valve could be an controllable valve used for emergencies, in which case we use that type of valve as a subnetwork controller to distinguish between two isolation zones. The pipe between the two devices can belong to more than one type of subnetwork. That pipe will participate in a system subnetwork, a pressure subnetwork and a isolation subnetwork.

Tom

Participe da Conversa

Membros conectados podem postar, seguir atualizações e mais. Novo aqui? Registre uma conta gratuita.

Links Rápidos

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.